Madam Speaker, I would like to thank members for giving me the opportunity to speak to this motion. I know that my colleague opposite had six minutes remaining, but since he is not here I will take the opportunity.

I want to commend the hon. the member for Fraser Valley for introducing this motion, which suggests that the government bring in legislation to make the tax deduction for contributions to charitable organizations no less than the tax deduction for contributions to political parties.

On the surface, if one were to look at this motion they would say it is great. For myself, as someone who represents a constituency that is urban in nature, I have thousands of organizations and community groups who on a daily basis are doing good work in the community. I do not want to name these organizations, but I can tell members that they range from hospitals to educational institutions to children's organizations to health and social service organizations to housing groups and so on.

These men, women, young boys and girls are out in their community on a daily basis, reaching out, trying to help those who are in need of help. Frankly, if we want to address the issue of charities and charitable work, it is these individuals and organizations that we have to acknowledge with regard to the well-being of our society and our community.

These individuals volunteer because they want to do good. These people contribute thousands of hours on an annual basis. They contribute their time and energy, not because they want to be rewarded, not because they want to be recognized, but because they want to do something good for the community. These individuals volunteer because it makes them feel that much better about themselves and about the society in which they live, and they feel good about supporting and helping others.

At no time have I ever heard an individual tell me that he or she was not going to support an organization or a cause because there were no financial incentives. These people volunteer because they want to. They do it because they know that they live in a compassionate and caring community.

I want to pay tribute to the parliamentary secretary for finance for speaking on this issue. He clearly stated to the House that what we require in this society is a balance.

We have a system which treats political contributions differently than charitable contributions. I will tell members how.

If I was to give $100 to a political organization, then at the end of the year I would be able to claim a tax credit of $75. However, if I was to give a charitable organization $100, at the end of the year I would only be able to claim $30.

On the surface anyone would say that is unfair and that we have to correct this situation. But that is not the whole issue.

The vast majority of Canadians give more than $300 a year, especially those who give to charities. As a result, the government has recognized the need to provide incentives to those who want to give to charities. Therefore, the government created a balance. It created a sliding scale. Those who contribute $250 or more to charities will get more of a tax rebate or more of a tax credit. For those who give to political organizations the government has created a sliding scale that decreases in terms of a tax credit.

In a sense it is not fair for us to judge the system on the first $10, $20 or $30 that my colleague was talking about. This is not what all of these men and women are giving to charities.

What they are giving to charities over a period of a whole year, which in most cases is over $250, is where we see the beauty of our tax treatment and the beauty of our system when it comes to recognizing those who are giving to charities.

It becomes clear at $1,150. Say, for example, that an individual Canadian is giving $1,160 to a charity and is giving $1,160 to a political party. He will get more credit for his contribution to the charity than to the political organization. If somebody gives a charitable organization $2,000 he will get a lot more in tax credits than if he was to give that $2,000 to a political party. If he gave $1,180, for the additional $30 he will get no tax credit. If he gave $2,000 he will get no tax credit for the additional $850.

To that extent the tax system is fair when one looks at the outer end, at those amounts above $250 or $300.

If we were to make large contributions like many organizations and individual Canadians do, for example to a hospital or to a university, if $10,000 or $20,000 was given, a tax credit of up to 75% would apply. However, if $10,000 or $20,000 was given to a political party there would not be a tax credit.

We have to look at the whole spectrum rather than simply looking at one small piece of the pie. If we were to look at the whole spectrum I would say we have gone a long way in trying to address the inequity in the system.

The government, since taking office, has introduced a number of initiatives and I would like to list only three. First, the government adopted measures that will lower the threshold for eligibility for the 29% tax credit to $200 from $250. Second, it adopted measures that will raise the annual income limit for the use of charitable donations to most charities from 20% to 75%. Third, it has reduced the income inclusion rate for capital gains arising from donations of appreciated publicly traded securities to 37.5%.

I would say that the measures which have been taken by the government are fair. Are they the best things we can do for charities? No. We can do a lot more. Are we doing more for charities? Yes. Should we do more for charities? Yes. There are over 80,000 charitable organizations across the land. Collectively their voluntary contribution in terms of manpower, in terms of men and women contributing through charities, is in excess of $12 billion a year. These are the issues that need to be addressed if we want to look at the fairness of the system and at the equity of the system.

The motion as proposed by my colleague would not solve the problem at all. It would be a complicating factor rather than solve the problem. What we have before us is a balancing act.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Motion No. M-318.

I will add a few contextual comments and note that we live in a time that is unparalleled in human history. Information is flooding our senses. New developments occur monthly that in the past took decades, if not longer.

I remember the comments of a leading social scientists who put it somewhat in perspective. He said that a 70 year old person living today has seen more technological and related social change in his or her lifetime than occurred in the entire human history prior to his or her birth.

Business communities and social communities form, thrive, mature and decline in much shorter cycles than ever before. Boom and bust cycles are shorter. We live in a time of dynamic and exciting change all around us. To attempt to hold to the old paradigm of a top down, centralist approach that says we will meet all needs just cannot do the optimal job in a dynamically changing nation made up of the communities in which we live.

Reform has long recognized this point. It is one of the reasons we advocate that the first order of government should be that which is closest to the people: municipal government first and then provincial government. The federal government should only address key national issues. Government close to the people will serve them best.

I appreciate Motion No. M-318 because it parallels this philosophy. The motion provides an opportunity to empower local communities to best tailor solutions which meet the needs within their communities. The motion reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring in legislation making the tax deduction for contributions to charitable organizations no less than the tax deduction for contributions to political parties.

If we can provide a strong funding incentive to political parties through the tax act, why not charitable organizations that work for the good in our communities? Charitable organizations usually combine volunteer or contributed service with the dollars they receive, thereby increasing the contribution of each dollar in the community.

Charities usually manage their money carefully as it is dependent upon charitable giving. It is not a limitless supply. They must demonstrate effective management and results if contributions are to continue. The needs of the community vary. Individuals giving to the charities of their choice express the needs within the community. Their choices allow for the matching of givings to the preferences of the givers and the priorized needs of the community.

Large scale government programs funded by tax dollars do not allow the giver to choose and do not allow for variations in community needs. They are more likely to cost more and deliver less. In short the community approach hits the mark. The government approach is less than the best and often misses the mark.

In light of the efficient way in which charities contribute to the quality of life in our communities, especially considering the dynamics of the times we live in and the need to improve the effectiveness of government social programs, it is time consider changing the tax act to address the inequitable tax treatment of charities versus political parties.

We can pose this question in our ridings “Do you think a dollar given to a charity does at least as much if not more for the quality of life in your community than a dollar given to a political party?” I know what the answer would be in my riding. I think we all do. It is time to support the motion.

Calgary Centre is a thriving entrepreneurial business capital with more than 103 corporate head offices. Calgary is second only to Toronto in the number of head offices. Yet contrary to the heartless image of the entrepreneurial profit making business people, which is a picture some in the House like to paint, Calgary thrives with volunteers and charities that make for a rich quality of life in a very caring community.

Calgary's rate of volunteerism is one of the highest in Canada. Charities such as CUPS work with street people in the inner city, drug addicts and prostitutes. They train, coach, counsel and care for people effectively. Through the efforts of this charity Calgarians have seen many gain victory over their past and find joyful purpose again through the work of the dedicated volunteers in that charity.

We could take the example of the Calgary street teens program run by a retired vice-squad Detective Ross McInnis who together with his volunteers give many hours and often risk their personal safety to save the lives of young teenagers who have become enticed and trapped in the drug and prostitution activities that sometimes occur in the inner city. Families have been restored through this program. Some of the troubled youth who have been helped now work to help others ensnared in teen prostitution.

The Youth Immigration Support Society of Calgary is run by a Calgary doctor. The purpose of this charity is to help integrate immigrant second language youth in a healthy way into our Calgary community. I met many of these teens and saw their joyful faces. This is work that no other group could do in the same way.

For close to 15 years now Jubilee Christian Centre has provided a Christmas banquet for the homeless and disadvantaged in Calgary. Over the years, thanks to donations of many corporate and private sponsors, this event has grown. Hundreds of volunteers now provide an all you can eat five course meal, clothing and gifts for 1,500 people at a massive Christmas party. The volunteers have as much fun as the guests.

These and hundreds more that I could list are examples of the vibrant contributions to the quality of life that charities provide to the Calgary community. Government programs cannot duplicate the sense of community, caring and joy giving that charity work brings. If giving to a political party has benefit, giving to a charity has no less benefit. Some would reasonably argue that giving to a charity adds far more to the quality of life in our communities.

I also note that this idea is not foreign to the House. It was a suggestion made by the finance committee in 1996 which recommended:

—that the government consider enhancing the charitable tax credit for donations to charities currently funded by governments to make it as generous as the current political tax credit for small donations to political parties.

Two years ago the finance committee recommended the change we are debating in the motion today. I hope now is the time to move ahead.

For sake of time I move to my summary and note that change is everywhere. Let us empower the charities on the frontline in Canada and in Canadian communities to meet the needs of those communities. They are closer to the community. They add value to the dollars they are given through flexible volunteerism. They have heart and caring that government programs can never match.

The finance committee recommended it two years ago. In a post-deficit world it is right to give these charities that are giving time and effort to Canadians fair treatment. Let us give this process fair consideration and unanimously support Motion No. M-318.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to Motion No. M-318. The PC Party is willing to support the motion on behalf of charities across Canada.

With the latest round of government downsizing charities across the country have been placed under even more pressure and perform wider ranging activities. A perfect example of this is the Victorian Order of Nurses. The VON is a national organization with branches reaching across the country. In recent years the role of the VON has been forced to expand exponentially as our health care services have been cut by the Liberal government. Many branches have been forced to increase their fundraising efforts to make up for the decline in funding resulting from higher cuts at the federal and subsequently provincial levels.

The VON branch in my riding of West Nova and those in many other areas have suffered severe funding cuts from the municipalities as the counties struggle to deal with cuts from provincial and federal governments.

A charity organization like the VON offers essential health services to the elderly in my riding. Programs like PEP, promoting elderly participation, which was initiated with the help of Health Canada during the Conservative government, help to keep seniors active and involved with other citizens in their community. These are programs that no longer receive government funding. The charities have had to find alternative funding arrangements to continue their services.

Meanwhile VON groups are also forced to fundraise to subsidize visiting nurses programs to individuals who need to be checked at home. For the elderly who cannot afford to pay for home visits, these services are essential to their health care. These visiting nurses programs combined with PEP, respite care and Meals on Wheels would not exist if it were not for the dedication and perseverance of volunteers and the generosity of donors.

When a person representing a political party in Canada can offer a potential donor a greater tax incentive to donate to a political party than an individual canvassing for a group like the VON, or many other worthwhile charities that provide essential health services, it uncovers an injustice in our tax system. It also highlights a larger problem: the complexity of Canada's tax code.

If I had a complete copy of our tax code today it would stand nearly the same height as I am from the floor. Filing a tax return should not require an individual to hire a tax lawyer or an accountant. We are talking about dealing with our own government and having to hire someone to do it for us.

When I stand in the House to discuss tax relief for low income Canadians it should be remembered that tax reform should not make tax more complex. The guiding principle behind tax reform should be tax simplification. Even the finance committee recognizes the need to assist our charities in their efforts to expand their fundraising activities.

During prebudget consultations last year witnesses before the committee suggested the exact motion we are debating today. The finance committee included it as a recommendation in its report to the Minister of Finance.

In conclusion, charities like the VON and many others should not be at a disadvantage compared to political parties when canvassing for donations. If we were to increase the charitable donations to be in line with the political system, charities across the country would receive enormous benefit. These charitable organizations offer essential services to society and should be encouraged, not discouraged, from continuing their activities.

Madam Speaker, there is absolutely no question that the government thinks it is very important to make sure all charitable organizations obtain contributions and recognition for the work they do. I and everyone else in the House would certainly support measures to make sure that political contributions and the work done by charitable organizations are recognized.

This is a motherhood issue when we stop to think about it. On the one side we can say that charitable organizations fill many gaps that government can no longer afford to pay. Charitable organizations can broaden the spectrum and add to the quality of life of many people. That is a given and is very true. Every one of us sees it in our communities.

I commend all charitable organizations and all the work they do. This bill however brings bring into existence a change in tax policy and suggests that whatever we do on the political contribution side should be matched equally on the charitable side. In that kind of scenario I question whether both of those measures have been set up for very specific reasons.

It is my belief that charitable organizations have been treated relatively well by this government. We have moved the agenda forward. We have increased the tax forgiveness for charitable organizations over the last four years even though we have had very tough times. The government is no longer spending $42 billion more than it is taking in. The direction has been to make sure that there is a balanced approach to this question.

Talking against a tax structure for charitable donations might be like talking against apple pie. The reality is that for the first $200 of charitable donations, the dollar amount people can have as a tax deduction is in the neighbourhood of 30% whereas for the first $200 of donations to a political party, the amount is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 60%.

There is a little better tax break for very small amounts given to a political party. However, as the tax structure is built, those people who give larger amounts to charitable organizations receive a far better tax break. After that magic figure of $200, people who give for example $100 to the heart association, $100 to the cancer association, $100 to a walkathon or some other local fundraiser, will get a better tax break after they have given $200 than before.

The point is that this government cannot afford to chop money out of its operating budgets because we would be placed in a position of reducing service to the Canadian population. In talking about the cost of this motion, without taking into account all of the donations above $200, it is my understanding on the first amount where this bill may equalize the political contributions and the charitable donations, it would cost the government in the neighbourhood of $125 million on that first $200. That is a pretty hefty cost.

A lot of work has gone into every government department to make sure that they streamline their spending, hold wage increases to employees, make certain that all things happening in every department to deliver the most vital services at the least expense have been looked at. Now we hear from the opposition to spend money here, spend more money there, give tax breaks here, give another opportunity there. At every juncture we are being asked to run this country using the scenario it ran on for so many years: if there is a problem, run the wheelbarrow full of money out and resolve the problem; if somebody wants money for a venture or somebody is having a problem, government can solve it by spending more money.

We came out of that. This country is doing better on the world scene today. We are doing better on the employment initiatives. We are doing better on delivery of service to Canadians. We are doing better because we have not moved to a different course of spending more money than we can, reducing taxes to buy in many cases the favour of a few.

At this point it is important that the government maintain the course we are on. We have to do the best we can for those making political donations. We have to make certain the rules and opportunities are there for those offering services to Canadians so we can help them as well as we can. However, I am frightened because day after day I hear more people suggesting in the House that we have money to spend and to give away, that we do not need to take in as much revenue. All those arguments are there, but that will inevitably lead us to our own defeat.

We must maintain a course of being as prudent as we can be. We must maintain a course of making sure we deliver services as efficiently as we can. We must make sure we maintain what Canadians have elected us to do, to be prudent in the decisions we make in the House and to make certain we get this economy back on track.

Some people say that since we have $3 billion to $6 billion more income than what we are spending, we should spend that $3 billion to $6 billion. I remind everybody in this House that there is a debt of $600 billion which must be paid for either by people today or by future generations. We cannot and should not get into a situation where we do anything except stay the course and try to be as fair with every organization and citizen as we can be.

Although it is a motherhood and apple pie issue in many ways where some say we should give them a better break, the other side of the coin suggests that if we continue to move in that direction we will be going back to old ways which inevitably will be bad for Canadians.

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today in support of my colleague's motion. The timing is certainly right. We are in the middle of prebudget consultations. It has been looked at a couple of times already, but this year it may have a little more credibility when it comes to the floor.

For the record the motion is “That, in the opinion of this House, the government should bring in legislation making the tax deduction for contributions to charitable organizations no less”—and I stress no less—“than the tax deduction for contributions to political parties”.

Examples have been stated before. Someone giving a $100 donation to a political party will receive a $75 federal tax credit, while a $100 charitable donation, which is the average donation given to a charity or less than that, only garners $17. There is quite a disparity. Motion No. M-318 sets out to change that and to make it better for everyone.

I would like to make it clear that we are not calling for more more complexity to the tax code or for more government expenditures. Motion No. M-318 urges the government to make the charitable tax credit no less than the political tax credit. The words “no less” give the government flexibility to change the tax credit in any way it likes. It can lower the political donation tax credit, increase the charitable donation tax credit, or have the credit amounts meet somewhere in the middle, as long as the charitable donation tax credit is no less than the political donation tax credit.

This means the costs of implementing Motion No. M-318 could be as little or as extensive as the parliamentary committee decides. The last member spoke to this issue and said that it would cost $125 million to implement this type of system. It is not really a cost but an investment in communities. Charities certainly do pick up the slack when governments at all levels pull back. We have seen tremendous lines at soup kitchens and so on. Charitable organizations are picking up that slack, not governments. Governments are actually helping to create the problem.

If the government looks at the value charities bring to society, it has to admit that giving a huge break for political contributions represents misplaced priorities when compared to the meagre credit it gives to the efforts of Canadians to support the poor and the vulnerable. As the member for Ottawa Centre talked about, despite its efforts the federal government still must do more to help charities.

For instance, the Ottawa Citizen reported last year that Michael Hall, the director of research at the Canadian Centre for Philanthropy doubted “the shortfall left by government cuts is being covered by increased donations. That is a huge gap to fill”, he said.

To counter this negative trend and help charities meet the increased demands on their resources, Motion No. M-318 recommends that the tax deduction for contributions to charitable organizations again be no less than political ones. The government can play with the numbers and make them fit as it sees fit.

Government members have recognized this disparity in the past. In the 1996 prebudget report by the Standing Committee on Finance and again in 1997 it was recommended that the government enhance the charitable tax credit for donations to charities currently funded by governments to make it as generous as the current political tax credit for small donations to political parties. Not for the first time, the Minister of Finance ignored the recommendations. By the rhetoric we are hearing this morning, it seems as though the Liberals have already determined that this prebudget consultation is finished and again there will be no charitable status changes. That prebudget consultation is not yet done so they are a little bit ahead of themselves in that regard.

One can only assume that the federal government ignored the recommendation in the 1996 and subsequent budgets because of, as it says, public financial costs. As Canada moves into this post-deficit world however, levelling the playing field between political parties and charities that leverage more money to do their good works in the community is a very timely idea. It has become more affordable to the government and as such deserves broader public debate and discussion. That is what we are doing here today.

I find it interesting that the report specifies charities currently funded by government. I take that to mean members recognize the taxpayers' dollars doled out by government generosity could be replaced by money doled out by the taxpayers themselves, that big brother knows best. We are saying get that money back to the communities where it came from to begin with.

The report also uses the phrase “to make it as generous as the current political tax credits”. This is one option, but as I mentioned earlier, we are not trying to push the government to commit to more expenditures, only to examine how it has skewed the present tax structure. I am interested in promoting two things here today, simplicity and fairness in the tax system and that this government has an obligation to recognize that contributions to worthy charities should be as valuable as contributions to political parties.

Volunteers are the backbone of charitable donations to the groups that they serve and also form the fabric of the communities they seek to make better. We as legislators must be aware of that and continue to support their efforts.

Madam Speaker, I am glad of the opportunity to speak to this issue. I have been very interested in charities for some years and have done quite a study of them.

Motion No. M-318 operates on the premise that less governance is better and to devolve government social services to independent organizations is a better thing. If Motion No. M-318 were acted upon, billions of dollars would go into charities as opposed to government services. We would notice immediately the effects of changing the tax credit structure with respect to charities.

Motion No. M-318 operates on the premise that if more money is given to charities, the charities will provide the services better than government. It ignores the reality that charities operate with the least level of transparency and accountability of any organizations in Canadian society today. At least when government provides services, government bureaucracies are accountable. Various legislation controls the transparency of how government bureaucracies operate. In the case of charities, this is not so, as it applies to all non-profit organizations.

An illustration of that is the Canada Corporations Act which provides standards of corporate governance and transparency and accountability to for-profit organizations. It provides nothing for non-profit organizations. Charities and non-profit organizations can operate and have no requirement under law to be transparent and accountable.

Members opposite propose that what is necessary in society is to give more power over social services to organizations that are not accountable to the people. These organizations are accountable to their board of directors, but there is no legislation that guarantees that the executive members of the charity actually have to report the truth to the board of directors. Therefore we have a situation where many charities operate at a high level of inefficiency.

I will give a classic example. In Ontario the Harris government has been cutting back on hospitals. It is causing all kinds of problems in health care. The hospitals have been ordered to cut 20% from their total spending. Lost are the nurses, the medical care and the beds. The administrators stay on. The administrators are not hurt. The administrators actually raise their salary.

Increasingly, talking to my Ontario colleagues, I find the Ontario government is becoming aware that it is not good enough just to cut a charity. If someone cannot control how that charity actually spends its money, if there is a cut like that, the administrators of those charities are the ones who will benefit. So in Ontario we have a very severe problem. I suggest it is because hospitals are charities.

The anecdotal evidence of the directors of hospitals not being informed by their own executive, the administrators of those hospitals, of the operation of the hospital is everywhere.

Anyone who has ever served on the board of directors of a hospital realizes that as a director they cannot get good information on how that hospital operates. We are talking about charities just in the hospital sector involving billions and billions of dollars.

The Reform Party motion operates on the premise of getting government out of the supplying of social services, returning it to the community.

If we do not have rules, if we do not have legislation in place that governs how our organizations spend money, then we are abrogating our very responsibility as politicians. We are here to serve the people of Canada who pay taxes to make sure those taxes are spent efficiently and well.

If we abrogate that responsibility, if we give it down the line to organizations that are not connected to the government and we do not set rules and legislation in place that govern those organizations, we are absolutely betraying the trust of the people of Canada.

I suggest Motion No. 318 is certainly a motherhood and apple pie issue. I also suggest that it is a politically correct issue because the people putting the motion forward think across Canada people everywhere will automatically support charities. One member opposite said that all he had to do was check in his constituency and he would find that everyone supports charity.

I suggest to members opposite that they do that. They will find that in Canadian society today, for very good reason people are more and more suspicious that the charities supposed to be doing the good work are, in many instances, extremely self-serving.

Madam Speaker, I welcome the chance to wrap up on Motion No. 318 which I brought forward some months ago.

There has been some consultation. I wonder if you would find unanimous consent that if a recorded division is asked for at the conclusion of this debate, the vote will be deferred to the end of Government Orders today.

Madam Speaker, it has been a pleasure to bring forward this motion. It has been described various ways, as apple pie and motherhood and a few other things. However, the intend of the motion was much more serious than that.

Had the member for Wentworth—Burlington read my initial speech, he would have realized I mentioned him in my speech. I mentioned that the accountability of charitable organizations is a good issue, one he has championed and I do not deny him that.

Everything cannot be done in this one motion. It has to do with helping those charities I think we all agree have done a good job of helping Canadian society. I hope that no one on either side of the House is denying that many charities do a lot of good work.

This motion also has come under challenge by the finance minister who said it would deny larger donors to charitable organizations the right to contribute large sums of money. That is just not true.

The reason the motion is crafted this way is to encourage the small giver, the ones who are probably typical of an average Canadian giver who gives a few hundred dollars to charity, and to help those people do more with their money. This motion is not asking the government to give more money to charities. It is allowing those individuals to contribute more and be recognized for it.

Regarding the other rules the finance minister has brought in to encourage other donors to contribute large amounts to charitable organizations, in my first speech I acknowledge that was also a good idea. I appreciate the initiative of the finance minister in that area. However, I wish the finance minister would not try to mix apples and oranges together because we are talking about two totally different issues.

The motion I think does have wide support. It also has the moral suasion behind it that we in political parties would argue do some good in society or we think we do at times, but we do not have more of a moral bat to swing than charities. That is for sure. The accountability is no more stricter here than it is for charities.

The finance committee has already brought forward an idea and this is a takeoff on that. It is high time we recognize charities do good work in this country. We want to encourage more people. We want to become a culture of giving. That culture can be helped by a government policy that says political contributions will not be considered more favourably than charitable donations.

The motion is very timely in view of the current budgetary situation in Canada. It is very doable. For a modest fee we can create something I think we all support, looking after our neighbour as we would look after our own.

For that reason I am pleased that this motion has come forward. I look forward to the vote tonight. I ask members on all sides of the House to vote yea in favour of Motion No. 318.